Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Article 41.2:

41.2.1 “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home,

woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”.



41.2.2 “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall 

not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect 

of their duties in the home”.

' to the neglect of their Duties in the home' could very easily be interpreted that way

Current Article 41.2

" 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Replacing the reference to 'woman' having her life within the home' and 'duties' within the home, with a more general recognition of the benefits of carers of any gender is a positive thing.

There are lots of men who are primary carers in the home while the woman goes to work, and Irish society should never go back to the point where women were compelled to give up their jobs when they got married in the way they were up until 1973

What? What is your point?

It explicitly states that by "HER LIFE within the home..."

Not my fault if you have a problem interpreting plain English that a marginal few have a problem with.

It recognises the contribution of women who stays in their (her) home to raise her kids. Is it wrong to recognise the work mothers do to raise their kids?

It also says that she shouldn’t have to choose between raising her kids and working IF SHE SO CHOOSES.

It’s perfectly worded. If you stay at home, thanks for your contribution, if not, that is your choice.

It doesn’t say anything about women belonging in the home.

Why not allow the men or fathers the same recognition?

Men traditionally don’t stay at home. If the referendum was to change the word woman to Parent, I’d vote Yes. But, as a man, I don’t need recognition

It's not going to include the word 'man' it's more likely 'parent' or 'career' or something along those lines.

And just because you don't need recognition, there are men who are primary caregivers who do deserve that recognition.

Might be distraction tactics albeit with good intent if it's done properly. Take the heat away from the asylum/refugee issue and get us all arguing again about words.

So what would the wording say? Person instead of woman perhaps. But as a pp said any tinkering around trying to introduce the alphabet soup of gender recognition into this will be a disaster. But maybe they want us arguing over it as I said....

This is the wording being proposed:

Plans were approved for a referendum to amend Article 41.1.1, which currently recognises the family “as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society”, to define the family as “whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships”.

Article 41.2, which currently recognises that “by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”, will be deleted.

It would then be replaced by: ‘The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.’

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/referendums-on-women-in-the-home-and-concept-of-family-to-take-place-next-march-1560793.html

So basically they’re suggesting the Constitution will recognise ‘durable relationships’ (that’ll be left up to the Courts to interpret) besides the Family, and in the second proposed wording, the Constitution recognises only the care provided in the Family by reason of the bonds that exist between them… ‘durable relationships’ not so pushed about provisioning support for those people.

They need to go back to the drawing board 😒

I’d hope that’s not the definitive wording tbh, I’d be interested in seeing the proposed changes in legislation to recognise what appears to be a recognition of the ‘de-facto’ family - what they appear to be recognising as ‘other durable relationships’ not defined by marriage.

It strikes me as an effort at ‘civil partnerships’, long as they’re not the equivalent of marriage, which still maintains it’s own set of rights and protections. There isn’t any indication of legal protections for the children of unmarried couples, or provision for caregivers who are not recognised as Family members by virtue of the bonds that don’t exist between them and the person or persons they are providing care for as their contribution to society.

First part could’ve been legislated for in the Children and Family Relationships Act in 2015, so I’m still not convinced the proposed wording would have any meaningful impact on current legislation without seeing what they have in mind, and I’m not sure what they’re aiming for in the second part, but it doesn’t give carers the support they were hoping for.

Family does need redefining, currently just referring to married couples leaves many families out. Cohabiting parents and children, single parents and their kids etc

Legislation in relation to family issues can only refer to all families, when the constitutional definition changes.